Allow me to read between the lines — why a San Antonio-based federal court found it necessary to redraw key lines in the state Legislature’s redistricting maps.

Here’s what two of the three judges wrote after releasing their interim state House map.

“The State insists that it did not engage in racial gerrymandering, but rather only engaged in these actions to make various districts more Republican.”

Translation: You gotta be kidding us, Texas. Just because Latinos tend to vote Democrat, you think it’s OK to deprive them of representation? Duh. Hello!

And here’s what the two judges — Orlando Garcia and Xavier Rodriguez — said about a complaint by dissenting judge Jerry Smith. Smith wrote that the court’s map unreasonably made “radical alterations in the Texas political landscape.”

“The reality is that demographics, not this Court’s actions, have changed the landscape.” The two judges noted that “the vast majority of that growth is attributable to growth in the Latino and African-American communities.” And they added: “Despite the population growth … the challenged enacted plan reduced minority opportunity districts from 50 to 45.”

Translation: So, Texas, let’s see if we get your argument right. Together, minority population growth accounted for 90 percent of the state’s total population growth and you try to strip them of districts because they’re not Republicans? Nope. Can’t let it happen.

Texas is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block the interim maps. Let me translate this:

We’re betting a high court with John Roberts at the helm and with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on the same bench, will, with a stay, give us a wink-wink on our blatant discrimination.

There are, of course, more charitable interpretations. Key among them: The GOP-controlled Legislature is doing just what Democrats would be doing if they were still in charge.

And this is no doubt true but still bogus no matter which party is saying it. The two concurring judges addressed this one, too.

“Ultimately, the Court was obliged to adopt a plan that complies with the United States Constitution and also embraces neutral principles that advance the interest of the collective public good, as opposed to the interests of any political party or particular group of people.”

Translation: We don’t care what color they are or what party they belong to. You shouldn’t have either. What part of voting rights don’t you understand?

A case of a Democratic court ruling for Democrats? Rodriguez was once appointed to the Texas Supreme Court by Republican Gov. Rick Perry and got to be a U.S. district judge because President George W. Bush appointed him. Bill Clinton appointed Garcia and Ronald Reagan appointed Smith, a Houston judge, to the federal bench. The three judges were unanimous in redrawing the state’s map on congressional districts.

The judges are clear that their maps are interim, that another federal court, in Washington, D.C., is considering whether the state’s plan ultimately deserves pre-clearance.

But, not even having to read between the lines, it’s hard to miss what the state was trying to accomplish here and I didn’t need the judges to allude to it for me.

Gerrymandering would be the mildest of descriptions, and the state’s maps reeked of it.